Iran's Supreme Leader sought to distance himself from the Iran-US memorandum of understanding, saying he approved it despite having “another view in principle,” as the two arch-rivals began implementing the document’s Strait of Hormuz commitments Thursday.
In his first message after the signing of the MoU, Mojtaba Khamenei said on Thursday he authorized the agreement only after President Masoud Pezeshkian, as head of the Supreme National Security Council, accepted responsibility for safeguarding Iran’s national rights and the interests of the “Resistance Front.”
He said Pezeshkian had pledged on behalf of himself and other council members to protect Iran’s rights and those of the Resistance Front, and had made clear that excessive US demands would be rejected.
“He also made clear that if the American side seeks excessive demands, they will not accept them,” Khamenei said.
The message reflected a pattern long associated with his father’s leadership: endorsing a major decision while maintaining a degree of political distance from its outcome.
By emphasizing Pezeshkian’s responsibility and the Supreme National Security Council’s assurances, Khamenei appeared to leave himself room to fault the government if the MoU falters, while retaining credit if it holds.
In his message, Khamenei said Iranian officials had made extensive efforts “out of compassion and goodwill” to reach the agreement, while accusing US President Donald Trump of acting “out of desperation” and using “all kinds of leverage” to secure it.
In-person talks with US
Khamenei also appeared to prepare the ground for upcoming in-person meetings between Iranian and American officials, saying, “It is self-evident that the in-person negotiations that will take place in the future will not mean acceptance of the enemy’s position.”
The message appeared aimed at both justifying his approval of the MoU and shifting political responsibility for its outcome to Pezeshkian and the Supreme National Security Council, as hardliners continued to criticize the agreement.
“From this moment, we — you, the proud nation, and this humble servant — will await the realization of the stated conditions,” he said.
US says blockade lifted
US Central Command said on Thursday that American forces had lifted the blockade on all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports and coastal areas in accordance with Trump’s direction.
“American forces are not impeding the transit of vessels to or from Iranian ports on the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman,” CENTCOM said in a post on X.
“All US military blockade enforcement efforts have ceased,” it added.
CENTCOM said US naval ships would remain in the area to ensure all aspects of the agreement were “adhered to, obeyed and in full force and effect.”
Iran sets Hormuz procedures
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council in turn said commercial vessels seeking passage through the Strait of Hormuz must submit requests to the Persian Gulf Strait Administration through PGSA.ir, in line with clause 5 of what Tehran calls the Islamabad memorandum of understanding.
The council said no fees would be charged to applicants for 60 days under the terms of the MoU, adding that the costs would be covered by the Iranian government.
It said the Persian Gulf Strait Administration had been instructed to process and respond to requests “with speed and priority” to help implement the objectives of the agreement.
The council added that because of “special conditions” and safety risks along the route, ships must pass through the strait at the assigned time and along the assigned route to ensure safe transit and prevent maritime incidents.
The parallel announcements marked the first visible steps by both sides to implement the maritime provisions of the MoU, after weeks of confrontation in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait of Hormuz arrangements are among the first practical tests of the MoU, which began implementation Thursday and opened a 60-day period for negotiations toward a final agreement.
For Iran, the new process allows Tehran to retain a role in managing passage through the strait while waiving fees for 60 days and pledging to facilitate traffic. For Washington, the lifting of the blockade signals a reciprocal step while keeping US naval forces in the area to monitor compliance.
The messages, sent to Iran International on Thursday, reflect grief, suspicion and political anger after details emerged of the memorandum between Tehran and Washington.
The agreement outlines a halt to the war, a 60-day negotiation period, steps toward reopening the Strait of Hormuz, possible oil waivers and discussions over frozen assets and sanctions relief.
But for many Iranians who responded, the central question was not what the Islamic Republic might receive, or whether Washington would enforce the terms. It was why ordinary Iranians appeared absent from the agreement.
“We gave our fallen, we endured more hunger and poverty, there was war, we moved further away from our dreams, we were hurt, we were killed unjustly, but uranium was the main issue,” one message said. “In these several clauses of the agreement, there was no word about the people of Iran.”
Another message described the memorandum as an agreement signed “over the bodies of Iran’s children,” referring to what the sender said were 42,000 lives lost.
The message reflected a broader anger among several respondents who saw the deal as a bargain made after months of bloodshed and repression.
Some directed their anger at US President Donald Trump, saying they had hoped Washington would side more clearly with the Iranian people. “Trump is a businessman who first sees his own profit and his country’s interests, and it does not matter to him what has happened or what will happen,” one message said.
Another sender wrote: “Tell Trump that your betrayal has remained so deeply in our hearts and minds that if one day America and Europe need the help of the people of Iran, not a single person will come toward you.”
Others focused on Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the lead Iranian negotiator expected to sign the memorandum in Switzerland on Friday. Ghalibaf has defended the document and urged officials to focus on improving the economy, but one message accused him of speaking more about Lebanon than about Iranians.
“Mr. Ghalibaf, in the same speech where you said we should fix people’s economy, you spoke several times more about Lebanon than about the people of Iran, and said the first clause of the agreement is also Lebanon,” the message said.
The 14-point memorandum includes a provision on ending military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, and ensuring Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also includes provisions on the Strait of Hormuz, oil exports, frozen assets, sanctions and Iran’s nuclear program.
US officials have since sought to limit expectations, saying the memorandum does not provide Tehran with automatic access to frozen assets, immediate sanctions relief or direct US funding.
They said any economic benefit would depend on Iranian compliance and progress toward a final deal, particularly on nuclear issues.
Inside Iran, however, the messages show that many are judging the agreement less by its financial mechanisms than by what it signals politically.
Some saw it as proof that the Islamic Republic’s long confrontation with the United States had ended in failure. “We are not fooled by the regime’s propaganda,” one message said. “The current memorandum between Iran and America was a definite defeat for the Islamic Republic’s 47-year policy.”
Another urged patience and unity, framing the deal as part of a longer process of weakening the system. “Be patient, regime change is happening, although at a gentle speed,” the message said. “Just stay united and give each other hope.”
But several messages were more despairing than hopeful. One sender compared the moment to a scene in a war film where a soldier, after fighting through chaos, suddenly stands still in shock and cries.
“That is how we, the people of Iran, feel with the news of the negotiations,” the message said.
Another asked why no country had insisted that Iranians themselves had rights that should be part of any settlement. “Why was there no one anywhere in the world to say that we, the people of Iran, had the right to live?” the message said. “Why should the human rights of all people in the world be respected except those of Iranians?”
